MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165023569 · doi:10.1242/jcs.044677

14-3-3 proteins function in the initiation and elongation steps of DNA replication in<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2009· article· en· W2165023569 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wafaa Yahyaoui, Maria Zannis‐Hadjopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topic14-3-3 protein interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOrigin recognition complexBiologyControl of chromosome duplicationPre-replication complexEukaryotic DNA replicationDNA replicationSaccharomyces cerevisiaeMinichromosome maintenanceDNA re-replicationLicensing factorReplication factor CDNA replication factor CDT1Cell biologyOrigin of replicationS phaseChromatinReplication protein ADNAGeneticsDNA-binding proteinYeastGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

14-3-3s are highly conserved abundant eukaryotic proteins essential for viability, at least in lower eukaryotes. We previously showed that they associate with mammalian and yeast replication origins in a cell-cycle-dependent manner, and are involved in the initiation of DNA replication. Here, we present evidence that 14-3-3 proteins are novel regulators of the initiation and elongation steps of DNA replication in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The results show that the Bmh2 protein, one of the two 14-3-3 homologues in S. cerevisiae, interacts with Mcm2 and Orc2 proteins, binds to ARS1 maximally at the G1 phase, is essential for plasmid stability, and is required for normal S-phase entry and progression. Furthermore, during G1 phase, the Bmh2 protein is required for the association of MCM proteins with chromatin and their maintenance at replication origins. The results reveal that 14-3-3 proteins function as essential factors for the assembly and maintenance of the pre-replication complex during G1 phase.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topic14-3-3 protein interactionsFrench-language works237,207